I accept the plausibility of what you are suggesting. That does not bother me. But the fellow in the video seems to be fundamentally uninformed about globe routes and distances. Here are a couple of shots from Google Earth that apply here:

Non-stop can simply mean in travel company speak that the plane is non-stop between picking up and dropping off passengers, not that it is non-stop between fuel stops. If a bus had to stop and fill up its tank at some point along its 28 stop route, would the bus company advertise that the bus made 28 stops or 29 stops?

Do you not think that passengers would notice if they stopped somewhere to get fuel on a "nonstop" flight?

First of all, I want to thank you for taking the time to patiently answer so many people. And I hate to weary you. But this point must be clarified. The map he is using is a known distortion, as are all paper/2D maps. No map is even close to accurate beyond the continental level. For you to imply I am quibbling when I object to his calling it a "globe earth" map worries me. I thought you understood mapping better than that based on what I have seen here.

Are you saying that he is drawing the correct shortest Round Earth route using that map? I shared the correct shortest Round Earth route using Google Earth. I must repeat that a) there is nothing special about the particular map he is using and b) no map can be drawn that will give correct routes and distances for general purpose universal navigation. The screenshots I shared are only good for the respective route in question.

Quote

21:08 He says these airplane ranges can't make the flight from Sydney to Santiago:Quantas 747-400 8357 miles787-800 Wikipedia 8786 milesBoeing 9200 miles

But the globe measurement is 7,000 miles from Sydney to Santiago. The airlines must be using a factor of safety for adverse conditions.

He's looking at Sydney to Buenos Aries, not Sydney to Santiago.

Quote

I accept the plausibility of what you are suggesting. That does not bother me. But the fellow in the video seems to be fundamentally uninformed about globe routes and distances. Here are a couple of shots from Google Earth that apply here:

Right. Those locations are possible detours on the Flat Earth monopole map, but not the globe. That is what he is saying.

This is similar to when the plane flying between Taiwan and LAX made a detour to Alaska when a woman went into delivery. That detour makes sense on the Flat Earth monopole map, but not on a globe.

I know you must be going in a million different directions like we all are. And I can't expect you to give full attention to every post on these forums by some drive-by yayhoo like me. So I don't hold your misconstruals here against you. But I was saying the exact opposite of what you inferred. I will say it again:

The random 2D map that he selected to draw on is not a 3D globe map in any sense. It might have randomly showed the correct route and distance from Taiwan to LA, or it might more likely (as it does) show a totally wrong route and distance. The screen shots I shared from Google Earth, on the other hand, are custom projections of the Round Earth specifically for the route in question. The distance is not scalable, but the routes are correct. They show that New Zealand and Anchorage are not big detours from these respective Great Circle (Round Earth) routes.

In fact, there very well may be another factor in play. For all we know, the air traffic controllers see fit to favor overland routes, and if it doesn't add appreciably to fuel and time, maybe they swing their routes slightly toward land (which would put the Taiwan-LA flight even a bit closer to Anchorage). This is only a speculation. I am sticking with shortest distance routes for the purposes of discussion.

That detour makes sense on the Flat Earth monopole map, but not on a globe.

By the way, how can you say that something make sense on the Flat Earth map where there is no true map? When we argue that for planes on Southern hemisphere to arrive in time, they need to break the sound barrier in some cases, you say we cannot say this because there is no true map. Wouldn't the same logic apply here, too? How do you know that it makes sense on Flat Earth map which don't even exist?

Why believe in Flat Earth theory when there is so much evidence supporting Round Earth?

That detour makes sense on the Flat Earth monopole map, but not on a globe.

By the way, how can you say that something make sense on the Flat Earth map where there is no true map? When we argue that for planes on Southern hemisphere to arrive in time, they need to break the sound barrier in some cases, you say we cannot say this because there is no true map. Wouldn't the same logic apply here, too? How do you know that it makes sense on Flat Earth map which don't even exist?

Well, he did say "the Flat Earth monopole map". So he was invoking a particular map. Now, how in the world he gets the idea that the detour makes no sense on a globe escapes me. I think maybe he 1) doesn't have a globe at his house and 2) does not have Google Earth installed on his computer. If you have neither of those, it's natural you would be unable to make accurate statements about Great Circle routes. But the strange thing is that he flat out asserts here what's not true.

Tom, I know you are intelligent. And you don't generally make flat out false assertions. What's with this assertion of yours?